| Literature DB >> 36248337 |
Dan-Hua Li1, Yong-Qiao He1, Tong-Min Wang1, Wen-Qiong Xue1, Chang-Mi Deng1, Da-Wei Yang2, Wen-Li Zhang1, Zi-Yi Wu1, Lian-Jing Cao1, Si-Qi Dong1, Yi-Jing Jia2, Lei-Lei Yuan2, Lu-Ting Luo2, Yan-Xia Wu1, Xia-Ting Tong2, Jiang-Bo Zhang1, Mei-Qi Zheng1, Ting Zhou1,3, Xiao-Hui Zheng1,3, Xi-Zhao Li1,3, Pei-Fen Zhang1,3, Shao-Dan Zhang1,3, Ye-Zhu Hu1,3, Xun Cao1, Xin Wang1, Wei-Hua Jia1,2,3.
Abstract
Background: It remains controversial who would benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) in patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aim to construct a polygenic hazard score (PHS) to predict prognosis and ACT benefit among NSCLC patients.Entities:
Keywords: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT); benefit; polygenic hazard score (PHS); predict
Year: 2022 PMID: 36248337 PMCID: PMC9554676 DOI: 10.21037/tlcr-22-139
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res ISSN: 2218-6751
Figure 1Schematic illustrating the use of the study datasets in this study. GSA, Global Screening Array; GWAS, genome-wide association study; PLCO, the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial; ACT, adjuvant chemotherapy; SYSUCC, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center.
Baseline characteristics of patients in this study
| Characteristics | All patients, n=1,395 | Training set (n=202) | SYSUCC validation cohort (n=826) | PLCO validation cohort (n=367) | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | 0.083 | ||||
| Male | 809 (58.0%) | 123 (60.9%) | 491 59.4%) | 195 (53.1%) | |
| Female | 586 (42.0%) | 79 (39.1%) | 335 (40.6%) | 172 (46.9%) | |
| Age (year) | <0.001* | ||||
| ≤59 | 503 (36.1%) | 112 (55.4%) | 364 (44.1%) | 27 (7.4%) | |
| >59 | 892 (63.9%) | 90 (44.6%) | 462 (55.9%) | 340 (92.6%) | |
| Family cancer history | <0.001* | ||||
| No | 954 (68.4%) | 160 (79.2%) | 650 (78.7%) | 144 (39.3%) | |
| Yes | 440 (31.6%) | 42 (20.8%) | 176 (21.3%) | 222 (60.7%) | |
| Smoking | <0.001* | ||||
| Never | 571 (40.9%) | 102 (50.5%) | 428 (51.8%) | 41 (11.2%) | |
| Ever | 301 (21.6%) | 26 (12.9%) | 145 (17.6%) | 130 (35.4%) | |
| Current | 523 (37.5%) | 74 (36.6%) | 253 (30.6%) | 196 (53.4%) | |
| Histology | <0.001* | ||||
| AD | 891 (63.9%) | 138 (68.3%) | 546 (66.1%) | 207 (56.4%) | |
| SCC | 378 (27.1%) | 41 (20.3%) | 228 (27.6%) | 109 (29.7%) | |
| Other† | 126 (9.0%) | 23 (11.4%) | 52 (6.3%) | 51 (13.9%) | |
| EGFR | <0.001* | ||||
| Wild type | 397 (28.5%) | 82 (40.6%) | 315 (38.1%) | 0 (0.00%) | |
| Mutation | 262 (18.8%) | 57 (28.2%) | 205 (24.8%) | 0 (0.00%) | |
| Unknown | 736 (52.8%) | 63 (31.2%) | 306 (37.0%) | 367 (100%) | |
| Grade | <0.001* | ||||
| G1 | 634 (45.4%) | 111 (55.0%) | 380 (46.0%) | 143 (39.0%) | |
| G2 | 524 (37.6%) | 81 (40.1%) | 312 (37.8%) | 131 (35.7%) | |
| G3 | 187 (13.4%) | 10 (5.0%) | 114 (13.8%) | 63 (17.2%) | |
| Unknown | 50 (3.6%) | 0 (0.0%) | 20 (2.4%) | 30 (8.17%) | |
| TNM stage | <0.001* | ||||
| I | 980 (70.3%) | 90 (44.6%) | 582 (70.5%) | 308 (83.9%) | |
| II | 415 (29.7%) | 112 (55.4%) | 244 (29.5%) | 59 (16.1%) | |
| ACT | <0.001* | ||||
| Without | 935 (67.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 624 (75.5%) | 311 (84.7%) | |
| With | 460 (33.0%) | 202 (100%) | 202 (24.5%) | 56 (15.3%) | |
| Radiotherapy | <0.001* | ||||
| Without | 1,350 (96.8%) | 189 (93.6%) | 815 (98.7%) | 346 (94.3%) | |
| With | 45 (3.23%) | 13 (6.44%) | 11 (1.33%) | 21 (5.72%) | |
| Survival status | <0.001* | ||||
| Alive | 784 (56.2%) | 115 (56.9%) | 527 (63.8%) | 142 (38.7%) | |
| Dead | 611 (43.8%) | 87 (43.1%) | 299 (36.2%) | 225 (61.3%) |
†, other subtypes include large cell, adenosquamous, sarcomatoid, basaloid, and unclassifiable NSCLC. *, P<0.05. AD, lung adenocarcinoma; SCC, lung squamous cell carcinoma; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; ACT, adjuvant chemotherapy.
Figure 2The construction of PHS. (A) Manhattan plot of P values derived from GWAS. The red horizontal line indicates suggestive level (P=1.0×10−3). (B) Partial likelihood deviance for LASSO coefficient profiles, the two vertical dotted lines are shown at the optimal values by minimum criteria (right) and 1-SE criteria (left). (C) LASSO coefficient profiles of selected SNPs. Thirty-seven SNPs remained with their nonzero LASSO coefficients by 1-SE criteria (left). Kaplan-Meier plot for (D) Testing set (n=202); (E) PLCO ACT set (n=56). P values comparing PHS groups were calculated with the log-rank test. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were for low vs. high PHS in univariate COX regression analyses. PLCO, the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial; PHS, Polygenic Hazard Score; ACT, adjuvant chemotherapy.
Figure 3Kaplan-Meier and forest plot of subgroup analysis for PHS in validation cohorts. (A) Kaplan-Meier plot for patients treated with surgery alone in SYSUCC (n=624, left), PLCO (n=311, middle), and the combined (n=935, right) surgery alone sets. (B) Kaplan-Meier plot for total patients treated with ACT or surgery alone in SYSUCC (n=826, left), PLCO (n=367, middle), and the combined (n=1,193, right) validation cohorts. P values comparing PHS groups were calculated with the log-rank test. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were for low vs. high PHS in univariate COX regression analyses. (C) Forest plot of HRs for PHS in different subgroups stratified by clinical parameters in the above three cohorts. HRs and 95% CIs were tested in multivariate Cox regression analyses adjusting for sex, age, grade, TNM stage, and ACT. SYSUCC, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; PLCO, the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial; PHS, Polygenic Hazard Score; ACT, adjuvant chemotherapy; AD, lung adenocarcinoma; SCC, lung squamous cell carcinoma; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor.
Figure 4Kaplan-Meier and multivariate analyses of overall survival by treatment in the combined validation cohort. (A) Kaplan-Meier plots for stage I patients for all patients (n=890, left), low-PHS group (n=280, middle), and high-PHS group (n=610, right). (B) Kaplan-Meier plots for stage II patients for all patients (n=303, left), low-PHS group (n=121, middle), and high-PHS group (n=182, right). P values were calculated with the log-rank test. HRs and 95% CIs for surgery plus ACT vs. surgery alone were tested in univariate COX regression analyses. (C) Forest plots of HRs of ACT for stage I (n=890, left), and for stage II (n=303, right). HRs and 95% CIs were tested in multivariate Cox regression analyses adjusting for sex, age, grade, and TNM stage. PHS, Polygenic Hazard Score; HR, hazard ratio; ACT, adjuvant chemotherapy.